Passive versus active follow-up to investigate the efficacy of primary prevention programs

Abstract

Before general application of a primary prevention program its efficacy has to be demonstrated. For this purpose a randomized controlled trial with active or passive follow-up may be conducted. In the last 5 years, the ratio of controlled trials with passive versus those with active follow-up was 1:13. However, under certain circumstances a passive follow-up may be more appropriate and useful to overcome the drawbacks of an active follow-up, as e.g. high costs and many drop-outs. In a randomized controlled trial, a passive follow-up is based on the reporting of cases by physicians or hospitals instead of actively following up all study participants individually. The statistical evaluation can be carried out using a one-sample chi2-test. Advantages and limitations are discussed. A passive follow-up may be advantageous in situations with low incidence, large number of participants, complete ascertainment of conditions with obligatory notification or effective disease registries and should be preferred in such a context.

Keywords

• active follow-up
• active follow-up
• study design
• randomized controlled trial
• primary prevention program